* * * * *
The agenda, notes and links to listen to the call online are emailed to subscribers to the
UHCAN listserv. Sign up here: uhcan.org/justice-connections

]]>What’s the connection between Medicaid and voting?http://uhcan.org/2018/11/08/whats-the-connection-between-medicaid-and-voting/
Thu, 08 Nov 2018 15:14:49 +0000http://uhcan.org/?p=1734When Medicaid Expands, More People Vote
Obamacare didn’t just give more people health insurance. It also caused more people to vote. That’s the conclusion of a new body of evidence that strongly suggests that giving people coverage through expansions of the Medicaid program increases their likelihood of participating in the next election. Medicaid expansions seem to raise both voter registration and voter participation, at least temporarily. (New York Times, Sanger-Katz, 11/8/18)
]]>Medicaid’s big night – How health care fared in midtermshttp://uhcan.org/2018/11/07/medicaids-big-night-how-health-care-fared-in-midterms/
Wed, 07 Nov 2018 15:43:35 +0000http://uhcan.org/?p=1731Quick overview of how health care fared in the midterm elections in this article – Medicaid expansion moving forward in at least 3 more states via ballot initiatives, and 3 more via gubernatorial victories, ACA repeal is off the table, but attacks on health care will continue in Congress and many state legislatures:

“For years, elected leaders in conservative states have resisted expanding Medicaid, the government health program for low-income Americans. Now voters in four of those states will decide the question directly.

“Ballot initiatives in Idaho, Utah, Nebraska, and Montana will test whether there’s a disconnect between politicians and voters over a program that insures 1 in 5 Americans at an annual cost of more than half a trillion dollars to federal and state governments. Advocates behind the measures in states carried by President Donald Trump in 2016 aim to distance Medicaid expansion from the law that makes it possible: the Affordable Care Act.”

What does “Medicare for All” mean? This brief from the Kaiser Family Foundation summarizes key issues and legislative proposals as this policy debate has received renewed attention on Capitol Hill and on the campaign trail this year.

Introduction

As policymakers debate next steps for expanding health insurance coverage and lowering health costs, some have introduced legislation that would broaden the role of public programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid. During the 115th Congress, eight such proposals were introduced, ranging from bills that would create a new national health insurance program for all U.S. residents, replacing virtually all other sources of public and private insurance (Medicaid-for-All), to more incremental approaches that would create a new public plan option, as a supplement to private sources of coverage and public programs.

These eight legislative proposals differ in ways that have important implications for consumers, health care providers and payers, including employers, states, the federal government, and taxpayers. Key policy differences relate to eligibility, the size and scope of the public plan, covered benefits and cost sharing, premiums, subsidies for premium and cost sharing, cost containment strategies, and the likely interactions with current public programs and private sources of coverage. They also vary in their level of detail; some bills, according to their sponsors, are intended to serve as blueprints for reform, and are expected to include greater specificity over time. Given the timing of the legislative calendar, these bills are unlikely to advance in the current Congressional session; however, they illustrate the range of options that will likely serve as prototypes for legislation that may be introduced in the next session of Congress.

Greatly simplified, these public plan proposals fall into four general categories:

Two proposals would create Medicare-For-All, a single national health insurance program for all U.S. residents (Senator Sanders, S.1804; Rep. Ellison, H.R. 676);

Three proposals would create a new public plan option, based on Medicare, that would be offered to individuals and some or all employers through the ACA marketplace (The Choice Act by Rep. Schakowsky, H.R. 635, and Sen. Whitehouse, S. 194); The Medicare-X Choice Act by Sen. Bennett, S. 1970, and Rep. Higgins, H.R.4094; and the Choose Medicare Act by Sen. Merkley, S. 2708 and Rep. Richmond, H.R. 6117)

Two proposals would create a Medicare buy-in option for older individuals not yet eligible for the current Medicare program (Sen. Stabenow, S. 1742; Rep. Higgins, H.R. 3748); and

One proposal would create a Medicaid buy-in option that states can elect to offer to individuals through the ACA marketplace. (Sen Schatz, S. 2001 and Rep. Luján, H.R. 4129).See the full Issue Brief HERE
https://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/medicare-for-all-and-public-plan-buy-in-proposals-overview-and-key-issues/

“A proposed rule from the White House would make it harder for legal immigrants to get green cards if they have received certain kinds of public assistance — including Medicaid, food stamps and housing subsidies. Green cards allow them to live and work permanently in the United States.

“Trump administration officials say the policy would promote “immigrant self-sufficiency and protect finite resources.” Critics say it could have serious public health consequences.

“Officials such as California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who has frequently clashed with the White House, are weighing challenges to the rule. ‘The Trump Administration’s proposal punishes hard-working immigrant families — even targeting children who are citizens — for utilizing programs that provide basic nutrition and healthcare. This is an assault on our families and our communities,’ Becerra said in a statement.

“But these actions depend on the final shape of the regulation, which could change through the rule-making process.”

]]>Puerto Rico is being forced to cut Medicaid to reduce its debthttp://uhcan.org/2018/09/17/puerto-rico-is-being-forced-to-cut-medicaid-to-reduce-its-debt/
Mon, 17 Sep 2018 14:34:21 +0000http://uhcan.org/?p=1674This is tragic and a shocking example of health inequity! The federal govt only pays 17% of Puerto Rico’s Medicaid costs compared to 70% for states, so cutting Medicaid further will even further devastate the lives of people there who are still trying to recover from Hurricane Maria: Puerto Rican Government Plans to Cut Medicaid to Help Balance Budget (9/6/18, pasquines.us)